Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.

Can the case be made that dual citizenship, with one American parent, makes one eligible for the Presidency?

With Obama, we have triple citizenship during his life: British, American, and Indonesian. His British citizenship became Kenyan in 1963, and expired at his 23rd birthday. If born in Hawaiii, he had American citizenship since birth. HE was legally adopted, his legal name changed and he became a citizen of Indonesia. Did he ever renounce his Indonesian citizenship?

I’m just asking anyone, not just you Patlin. I think your points are fine.

I have just never seen such a convoluted case as Barry Soetoro’s.

I just don;t see a scenario where he can argue he is natural born when he only has one American parent. Because a baby os the product of two people, whether the baby is illegitmate or not, he had a father. And that father was not American.

Although citizenship in some cases will follow the mother, native citizenship does not equal natural born in every instance.

In my opinion, Barry is such an instance.

51
posted on 12/28/2009 8:06:36 AM PST
by exit82
(Democrats are the enemy of freedom. Sarah Palin is our Esther.)

In 1787 George Mason was a political figure to be reckoned with. spoken of in the same breath with Virginians Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee. He was, as they said then, "a man of parts"; Jefferson described him as "of the first order of greatness." The chief author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, Mason had been either a legislator or a confidant in the Revolutionary councils of the Old Dominion from 1774 onward. Now, from May to September in 1787, Mason was a key member of his state's delegation at the Federal Convention, a frequent and persuasive speaker, and the man who played a vital role in such matters as presidential impeachment and fiscal responsibility.

But Mason did not approve of the outcome of the Constitutional Convention. He made significant last minute motions on the convention floor, and one which his colleagues rejected returned to haunt them: Mason belatedly called for the addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution. Mason's call was shaped into a motion by Elbridge Gerry. They must have witnessed the roll call of states with chagrin as the resolution "to prepare a Bill of Rights" was defeated unanimously.

Then and later the Federalists were short-tempered when the subject of a bill of rights arose. Delegate Robert Sherman was their spokesman when he helped derail Mason's motion. Stating that he too was "for securing the rights of the people where requisite," Sherman continued, that "the State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient." Moreover, Sherman contended, "the Legislature may be safely trusted." James Madison sided with Sherman and five days later, thirty-nine of Mason's col leagues (one by proxy) signed the Constitution. Mason, Gerry, and Edmund Randolph (who also declined to sign), watched the convention approve the Constitution, according to Dr. Franklin's motion, "by the unanimous consent of the States present."

Franklin's tactic placed the trio of naysayers on the defensive, an awkward position for one like Mason who had been so hopeful at the start of the enterprise. Mason had come to Philadelphia that spring convinced that "the Eyes of the United States are turn'd upon this Assembly, & their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree." "May God grant we may be able to gratify them," Mason prayed in June 1787. Along with James Wilson and James Madison, Mason had engaged articulately in debates on behalf of enlarging participation. Mason's arguments for popular election of the lower house in Congress, his insistence on the right to impeach a corrupt president, and his approval of presidential elections by a direct vote of the citizenry all fitted his philosophical commitment to a broad-based republic. A slave owner and man of means, Mason had also denounced the slave trade.

At the same time, Mason sought to keep the Union from swallowing the states, and thus he supported selection of senators by the state legislatures and vowed "he never would agree to abolish the State governments. or render them absolutely insignificant." Mason also adamantly sought protection for southern shipping interests in the form of a two-thirds majority for commercial legislation. Within his own guidelines, Mason steadily argued for a government that trusted the people over the privileged. Fellow delegate William Pierce said of Mason: "He is able and convincing in debt steady and firm in his principles, and undoubtedly one of the best politicians in America."

After nearly four months of give and take, compromise and bullying, the delegates had survived and so had their Constitution; but in Mason's view the convention still gave too little attention given to citizens' rights. Mason distrusted the final draft as a protector of the individual citizen or of the southern planting economy. During that last week, Mason recorded his misgivings about the Constitution on the back of the printed report of the Committee of Style, beginning simply: "There is no Declaration of Rights." From that preamble, Mason proceeded to list what he called his "Objections to this Constitution of Government."

His original list of objections claimed that the Constitution upset the English common law, made Congress into a kind of oligarchy, allowed the federal courts to destroy state ones, and left the presidency rudderless without a "Constitutional Council." Mason feared that without the latter, a natural cabinet "will grow out of the principal officers of the great departments; the worst and most dangerous of all ingredients for such a Council in a free country." The created office of the Vice President, Mason thought, was disastrous and unnecessary, since the incumbent "for want of other employment is made president of the Senate, thereby dangerously blending the executive and legislative powers."

As for the presidential powers, Mason thought the chief executive might misuse his "unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason" and might "screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt." The president's treaty-making powers, combined with senatorial approval, made such pacts the supreme law of the land without any scrutiny by the people's branch of government-the House of Representatives. And by allowing a congressional majority to pass laws restricting American commerce "the five Southern States, whose product and circumstances are totally different from that of the eight Northern and Eastern States, may be ruined."

Mason also lambasted the vague construction of the Constitution and foresaw the "general welfare" clause as a catchall term bound to be abused. Although Mason specifically called for declarations of freedom of the press and trial by jury, he lamented the ban on ex post facto laws in the state legislatures since "there never was nor can be a legislature but must and will make such laws, when necessity and the public safety require them."

Gloomy to the end, Mason predicted that without an immediate ban on slave trading the nation would be "weaker, more vulnerable, and less capable of defense," and under the Constitution would "set out [as] a moderate aristocracy" then degenerate into either a monarchy or "tyrannical aristocracy." "It will," he predicted, "most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other."

First as a handwritten text and then as a printed pamphlet, Mason's "Objections" made the rounds in Philadelphia's political circles during the last two weeks of September. From the opening phrase of his "Objections" to the bill of rights that James Madison offered in Congress two years later, the line is so direct that we can say Mason forced Madison's hand. Federalist supporters of the Constitution could never overcome the protest created by Mason's phrase: "There is no Declaration of Rights." Months later, Hamilton was still trying "to kill that snake" in Federalist No. 84. Oliver Ellsworth's "Landholder" essays in 1787-88, perhaps more influential than the papers of "Publius," also made a frontal. attack on Mason's "Objections," as did Federalist James Iredell in North Carolina in 1788.

But the idea was too powerful. Mason's pamphlet soon circulated along the Atlantic seaboard and by the onset of winter the "Objections" had appeared in newspapers in Virginia and New Jersey. Mason himself paid for a second printing and sent Washington the pamphlet early in October, claiming that "a little Moderation & Temper, in the latter End of the Convention, might have removed" his misgivings.

Mason also mailed one to Jefferson, then at his diplomatic post in Paris, explaining that "These Objections of mine were first printed very incorrectly, without my Approbation, or Privity; which laid me under some kind of Necessity of publishing them afterwards, myself. You will find them conceived in general Terms; as I wished to confine them to a narrow Compass." Mason went on to add to his list objections related to regulating the state militia, to the potential power to abuse the election process, and the power of congressmen to raise their own salaries. "But it would be tedious to enumerate all the Objections," Mason concluded, "and I am sure they cannot escape Mr. Jefferson's Observation." But whatever his other objections, it was the issue of the bill of rights that struck Jefferson. Not long after Mason's pamphlet reached Jefferson's desk in Paris the American minister was writing to friends at home in outspoken terms. Jefferson told Madison he liked the Constitution but was alarmed by "the omission of a bill of rights," and, to John Adams's son-in-law, Jefferson said bluntly: "Were I in America, I would advocate it [the Constitution] warmly till nine states should have adopted, and then as warmly take the other side to convince the remaining four that they ought not to come into it till the declaration of rights is annexed to it."

In a backhanded way, Jefferson's plan became the model. Alarmed by Anti-Federalist strategy that aimed at a second federal convention, friends of the Constitution wanted to derail any scheme for another national gathering. Although Madison was concerned that a bill of rights would offer little real protection and by enumerating some rights put others in jeopardy, if concessions on the bill-of-rights issue could forestall demands for a second convention, Federalists came to realize they must pay that price. Starting at the Massachusetts ratifying convention in February 1788, Federalists in charge of counting votes abandoned their adamant position and began to talk about "recommendatory amendments."

By conceding that a bill of rights ought to be considered by the first Congress, Madison and his coworkers whittled away at the AntiFederalist majority in Virginia. Their concession on a bill of rights made it easier for committed AntiFederalist delegates to swallow the bitter pill of ratification, and in Virginia the Federalists' gesture also gave proponents of the Constitution a way to defend a vote in opposition to Patrick Henry and Mason, who were still not assuaged. As they saw their majority melting away, Henry and Mason wanted their proposed amendments, including a bill of rights, to be a condition for Virginia's ratification. When the convention rejected that tactic and voted instead, as the Massachusetts delegates had done, for "recommendatory" amendments, the game for the staunchest Anti-Federalists was over. The Constitution was quickly ratified.

But James Madison had learned his lesson. A few months later, when he ran for a seat in that first Congress, Madison had to assure constituents that "it is my sincere opinion that the Constitution ought to be revised." What changes would he seek? Nothing less than a bill of rights containing "the most satisfactory provisions for all essential rights, particularly the rights of Conscience in the fullest latitude, the freedom of the press, trials by jury, security against general warrants &c." It seems unlikely that Madison would have made such an aboutface without the storm of protest first raised by Mason's "Objections."

By not signing the Constitution, Mason had gained a principle but lost a friend. Or almost so, for a painful estrangement between Madison and himself did not abate until Madison introduced a bill of rights in Congress in September 1789. Mason quickly praised the provisions in a letter to Congressman Samuel Griffin from Virginia, knowing his letter would be seen by Madison. "I have received much Satisfaction from the Amendments to the federal Constitution, which have lately passed the House of Representatives," Mason wrote, "I hope they will also pass the Senate. With two or three further Amendments . I could cheerfully put my Hand & Heart to the new Government."

One of the most self-effacing men ever to serve the American people, Mason regretted the tensions that grew out of the ratification struggle. Eventually, he welcomed Madison and Jefferson back to his home at Gunston Hall, and their friendship fell into the old grooves. But Mason standing as a "founding father" was long under a cloud, owing chiefly to his stance on the Constitution. His patriotic service in preparing the Fairfax Resolves in 1774, his cardinal role at the Virginia Convention of 1776, his authorship of that state bill of rights, until 1829), and his offering of time, talent, and money to the American cause between 1776 and 1781 became only dim memories, hardly mentioned in the standard histories. By the early twentieth century, however, attention to civil liberties began to increase and scholars came to note the original role Mason played when he insisted on constitutional protection for a free press and other civil rights. By 1988, Mason was beginning to reap some of the acclaim he deserved for his simple warning: "There is no Declaration of Rights."

Copyright 1985 by the American Political Science Association and American Historical Association. This essay may be photocopied if attributed as follows: "Reprinted from this Constitution: A Bicentennial Chronicle, Fall 1985, published by Project '87 of the American Political Science Association and American Historical Association. For further information on APSA copyrights contact APSA at apsa@apsanet.org, by phone at (202) 483-2512 or Fax (202) 483-2657.

ABOUT THE AUTHORRobert A. Rutland, is former editor of the Papers of James Madison and is research professor of history at the University of Tulsa.

This Republic has never seen such a convoluted case. The wall of secrecy erected around Obama to protect him, the wall of denial and derision erected around Obama to protect him as well, the ludicrous Senate Resolution 511, and the ongoing campaign to marginalize every single effort to gain clarification of the convolution, as to Obama's eligibility for Office, should be alarming in the extreme, for any individual who purports to uphold our Constitution.

If the framers had intended for dual citizenship, they would have not included this and thus the reason for the War of 1812, to force the Brits to discontinue their hold on the new American citizens that were former Brit subjects. This however did not completely stop the Brits and so in 1868 it was formalized by the Expatriation Act of 1868.

There is also the fact of the distinct difference in citizenship qualifications for Congress & President and for that you can go to the Federalist papers & the Anti-Federalist papers for clarification. Congress has 535 members, The Executive only 2, thus the reason for more stringent qualifications for the Executive who is also the commander in chief of the US military.

54
posted on 12/28/2009 8:49:48 AM PST
by patlin
(1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")

So Mason said the Constitution conflicted with common law? No doubt it does, in some aspects, which is why we have the legal doctrine that common law is automatically overridden when it comes into conflict with statute law.

It is extremely doubtful that he meant that the mere institution of a constitutional government would by itself immediately invalidate all aspects of the common law, including definitions of legal terms. If it had, all aspects of law would have had to be rewritten by stature, and they just weren’t. US law has gradually veered away from correspondence with English law as both countries pass statutes, but for a long time it was very similar.

In particular, if the Founders meant “natural born citizen” to be something different from that known to common law, the normal and natural meaning in a legal sense at the time, one would expect them to have explained it in more detail.

When legal men use a legal term in a document, one expects them to use it in the normal and standard sense, unless they explain otherwise. If they don’t, we quickly get into “definition of is” territory.

The very nature of a constitutional republic and the necessitated devolving of sovereignty upon the people negates the claim. You can find any number of early Supreme Court decisions that spell this out for you, Sherman Logan. Start with Chisholm v. Georgia.

You'll not find a cite from any judge or elected figure, even up to and beyond ratification of the 14th Amendment, that agrees with your interpretation of natural-born citizenship being precisely cognate with the feudal English concept of liege. It cannot be, there is no sovereign other than the people under a constitutional republic. Vattel made this clear, and so did our Founders.

On the other hand, there are numerous cites and historical references, that support the contention that being born on the soil of citizen parents is precisely the understanding that was intended by the Framers, and this understanding was supported explicitly right up to Minor v. Happersett and beyond, a decision which occurred by the way, after ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Try to find any of the Founders, or any early Supreme Court Justices, stating that anyone born in the country is a natural-born citizen. You won't. You'll find quite a few agreeing with a combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis, however. There was a practical reason for this, that involves poorly understood or even forgotten roles that the several States played.

Citizenship, natural-born or otherwise, was determined by those several States, by a variety of means. In order to make the Executive eligible under all jurisdictions, both jus soli and jus sanguinis had to be accommodated. That's what the 14th was all about, recall, that no one born on the soil of the United States could be denied citizenship. Who do you think was doing the denying, and under what authority?

There is also the fact of the distinct difference in citizenship qualifications for Congress & President and for that you can go to the Federalist papers & the Anti-Federalist papers for clarification. Congress has 535 members, The Executive only 2, thus the reason for more stringent qualifications for the Executive who is also the commander in chief of the US military.

That is an excellent point, and well worth repeating.

61
posted on 12/28/2009 9:19:57 AM PST
by exit82
(Democrats are the enemy of freedom. Sarah Palin is our Esther.)

Show me the law/statute passed by Congress that recognizes dual citizenship and the law/statute passed by Congress repealing the part of the oath for naturalization where the person no longer has to renounce any foreign allegiances he/she may have.

If you can find them, then you will have a case to debate, until then, you are just plain wrong.

64
posted on 12/28/2009 9:31:35 AM PST
by patlin
(1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")

This may help you out a little, posted on a Conservative site. Also is your spouse eligible to run for the office of the U.S. Presidency???

The Illegality/Un-Constitutionality of Dual Citzenship

Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on December 27, 2009

First, thanks to the readers for their patience in my non-posting days leading up to Christmas. Yes Christmas has now past, but for those of us who were snowbound and whose 18 wheels must keep rolling to pay the bills, our holiday gatherings will have to be revisited after the new year has rung in.

Now, back to the business of our Constitution & US citizenship, in which I have had some spirited debates on recently, I bring to you a snippet from Edwin Meese IIIs 2005 release of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I came across this while researching back through Article I in my effort to better understand the commerce clause & the general welfare clause.

It was like fate that the word dual jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.

page 111:

Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.

Yet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the off-spring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held public office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life, despite statutory law. ~ Joseph Bassette

Meeses full review of the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution covers the War of 1812 and numerous Supreme Court cases, but let these facts ring loud and clear:

1) America has never legally recognized dual citizenship, and the framers never intended for a dual national to hold the highest office in the land

2) The American judicial system has over-stepped its bounds and created fictitious laws that they had no authority to do so

3) It is a fact, that as of this day, there is no statutory law allowing for dual citizenship that has ever passed out of the US Congress

Which brings me back to THIS, a list of Congressional aactivities since 1973 to remove the term natural born citizen from Article II and replace it with citizen as well as Congressional activities to change the laws and confer natural born status on all anchor babies that would have been retroactive if passed. They were also ALL Congressional activities that all died in committee because they knew full well the public would not stand for a foreigner to become President.

Oh, wait, they didnt need the legislation, they only needed a dumbed down public & corrupt election process.

Does it make it law? absolutely not!

Does it make it irreversible? absolutely not!

Will it ever be reversed? I pray for our Nations national security & sovereignty that it does.

This entry was posted on December 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm and is filed under Corruption, Educational Material, Media Propaganda, US Congress Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Also is your spouse eligible to run for the office of the U.S. Presidency???

Of course not. Should my wife choose to become naturalized (and she's not required to) she'll be in the same boat as the current Governor of California (who, unless the Constitution is amended, is ineligible for the Presidency).

My California-born son, on the other hand, will be at the age of 35 no less eligible than the current, sworn-in occupant of the White House.

I never got past the first sentence: Until recent decades, American public policy consistently prohibited dual citizenship as half my family carries at a minimum dual citizenship status (US and Ireland). My Dad carried simultaneously: US, Australian, Irish and held a Certificate of British Patriality. It is possible to swear allegiance to the crown and the US Constitution concurrently.

69
posted on 12/28/2009 11:38:34 AM PST
by MrsEmmaPeel
(a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)

Citizenship, natural-born or otherwise, was determined by those several States, by a variety of means.

Au contraire. In the Dred Scott decision, the Supremes proclaimed that "persons of African race" were not and could not be citizens of the United States, regardless of whether a given State considered them citizens, or their personal status (free or slave). This decision was rammed thru, despite the fact that, as the dissenters on the Court pointed out, free blacks had at various times been considered citizens of a rather large number of states, including some southern ones.

By this rather dramatic power grab, the Supremes allocated to themselves the power of determining who was and was not a citizen of the United States, regardless of what a State said. The 14th Amendment was needed, or at least was used, to overrule this atrocious decision.

That's what the 14th was all about, recall, that no one born on the soil of the United States could be denied citizenship. Who do you think was doing the denying, and under what authority?

If you like, I'm open to the argument that the definition of how citizenship is acquired was changed by the 14th amendment, as it doesn't change my point with regard to the situation today. It also doesn't make your point, as the 14th merely states the law, it does not say it is changing it from that existing before. It took the power of determining citizenship, already severely wounded by Dred Scott, completely away from the States, or Congress for that matter.

The Wong Kim Ark decision is pretty clear, at least to me, that native born = natural born = born on the soil of the UN to someone other than a foreign diplomat. One of the dissenters pointed out that this decision made a child of "coolies" eligible to be elected President. Presumably he thought this was self-evidently a bad thing. He was nevertheless outvoted.

You may believe, and perhaps rightly, that the law should be otherwise. If you think a Supreme Court decision or constitutional amendment to impose your definition of "natural born" is politically feasible, I want some of whatever you're smoking.

I find it quite remarkable that there is little discussion of what needs to be done to prevent the future election of a perhaps ineligible president. Since all it would take is one state requiring all candidates to document their eligibility before going on the ballot, this shouldn't be too difficult to put through. But nobody seems interested. Why do you think that is?

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says it’s the responsibility of the states to make sure political candidates are eligible for the offices they seek, but he’s in favor of both state and federal demands that future presidential candidates have a formal procedure to document their qualifications.

I don't have any beef with your post here about your wife and son, however, the "sworn" in usurper, the occupier of the W.H., still is a dual citizen, British/E.U. and most likely a triple citizen by his Indonesian adoption, disqualifying him as a NO NBC to ever hold this office he fraudulent sneaked into!

The Illegality/Un-Constitutionality of Dual Citzenship

Here's an article from a Conservative site, and if it unclear to you then check with the Heritage Foundation with your oposing questions!!

Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on December 27, 2009

First, thanks to the readers for their patience in my non-posting days leading up to Christmas. Yes Christmas has now past, but for those of us who were snowbound and whose 18 wheels must keep rolling to pay the bills, our holiday gatherings will have to be revisited after the new year has rung in.

Now, back to the business of our Constitution & US citizenship, in which I have had some spirited debates on recently, I bring to you a snippet from Edwin Meese IIIs 2005 release of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I came across this while researching back through Article I in my effort to better understand the commerce clause & the general welfare clause.

It was like fate that the word dual jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.

page 111:

Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.

Yet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the off-spring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held public office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life, despite statutory law. ~ Joseph Bassette

Meeses full review of the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution covers the War of 1812 and numerous Supreme Court cases, but let these facts ring loud and clear:

1) America has never legally recognized dual citizenship, and the framers never intended for a dual national to hold the highest office in the land

2) The American judicial system has over-stepped its bounds and created fictitious laws that they had no authority to do so

3) It is a fact, that as of this day, there is no statutory law allowing for dual citizenship that has ever passed out of the US Congress

Which brings me back to THIS, a list of Congressional aactivities since 1973 to remove the term natural born citizen from Article II and replace it with citizen as well as Congressional aactivities to change the laws and confer natural born status on all anchor babies that would have been retroactive if passed. They were also ALL Congressional activities that all died in committee because they knew full well the public would not stand for a foreigner to become President.

Oh, wait, they didnt need the legislation, they only needed a dumbed down public & corrupt election process.

Does it make it law? absolutely not!

Does it make it irreversible? absolutely not!

Will it ever be reversed? I pray for our Nations national security & sovereignty that it does.

This entry was posted on December 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm and is filed under Corruption, Educational Material, Media Propaganda, US Congress Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Now, back to the business of our Constitution & US citizenship, in which I have had some spirited debates on recently, I bring to you a snippet from Edwin Meese IIIs 2005 release of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I came across this while researching back through Article I in my effort to better understand the commerce clause & the general welfare clause.

It was like fate that the word dual jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.

page 111:

If you kept fanning to page 189, you'd see that the Heritage Guide has an entire section entitled "Presidential Eligibility." Wherein it states, on page 190:

"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President."

It says absolutely nothing about a dual citizenship bar. The definition of "natural born citizen" as provided by the Heritage Guide explicitly confirms that Obama is a natural born citizen.

Au contraire. In the Dred Scott decision, the Supremes proclaimed that "persons of African race" were not and could not be citizens of the United States, regardless of whether a given State considered them citizens, or their personal status (free or slave). This decision was rammed thru, despite the fact that, as the dissenters on the Court pointed out, free blacks had at various times been considered citizens of a rather large number of states, including some southern ones.

You're inadvertantly reinforcing the point that citizenship, at the time the Constitution was ratified, was determined by the several States, which had been in existence under the Articles of Confederation since 1781, each having their own, separate Constitutions and their own, separate definitions of a natural-born citizen, with differing requirements and differing terminology, some derived from the English common law, and some not.

The Framers sought not to override preexisting, Constitutional requirements within the several States. They were, after all, representatives of their own respective States at the Convention. The Framers sought to form a constitutional republic from these several States, and the role of the Federal Government was severely constrained under the Constitution as ratified. It was further constrained almost immediately after ratification via Amendment, in order to accomodate a strong desire for a Bill of Rights, as detailed at length upthread. Recall George Mason's powerfully stated Objections, arising from the perception that the Constitution as ratified overturned English common law.

The Constitution set forth standards for eligibility to Office at the Federal level. The Constitution enumerated power to the Legislative branch to enact a uniform rule of naturalization. The several States made all remaining determinations as to just who were their citizens, and furthermore, what sort of citizenship these State citizens possessed, under powers reserved unto these States.

There is a rather unique eligibility case from the earliest years of our Republic, involving Albert Gallatin. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it, and the particulars of State jurisdiction regarding determinations of citizenship and just how that impacted his eligiblity for elected Office. He was ruled ineligible, by the way. And, do recall, please, that the Article II requirements for eligibility have never been amended. The original understanding of the Framers still stands as a result, and does apply to the matter at hand regarding Barack Obama.

“The Wong Kim Ark decision is pretty clear, at least to me, that native born = natural born = born on the soil of the UN to someone other than a foreign diplomat. One of the dissenters pointed out that this decision made a child of “coolies” eligible to be elected President. Presumably he thought this was self-evidently a bad thing. He was nevertheless outvoted.”

The majority may have disagreed that their decision made a child of coolies eligible to be POTUS and rejected that contention of the dissenter.

The question before the Court as stated by the majority concerned only the citizenship and citizenship rights of Wong, not his NBC status, which is not a citizenship right.

The decision equated Wong's citizenship rights with the rights of the natural born while maintaining a distinction between the two. NBC status is not a right but rather it is a condition of birth. The court did not say that Wong was NBC.

Yeh -- by the members of the same institution that is charged with accepting or rejecting the votes of the electoral college, and it included the Paperless One himself.

Which, in fact, does not specifically say that?

Ahhh -- "specifically". It may not say it specifically enough for you or other of the Paperless One's apologists, but it does say it. Perhaps you should try reading with some "objectivity" or just ask someone who signed it, like Senator Leahy. That might help.

Well there's H.R 593 recognizing Hawaii's 50th anniversary as a state and the fact that it was the birthplace of the current president.

Hmmm. Did the signatories of SR511 sign on to that yet???

[P.S. -- Was all of that "specific" enough for you or do you need more specificity?]

Since you are so adamant that Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was not used by the Framers, could you post a list of what references were used in the development of the US Constitution, with some links to support your opinion, please? Thank you.

I never said it wasn’t used. I said the legal terminology used in the Constitution is most likely that of common law, the norm for the country at the time.

You are aware that civil law is descended from Roman jurisprudence and was imposed by absolute monarchs on their slaves, aren’t you? Why would you support it over the common law of freeborn Englishmen? Why would the Founders?

BTW, your question asks me to prove a negative, which is of course not possible.

Let’s turn it around. What is your rationale, preferably from the minutes of the convention, that Vattel’s definition was used to define NBC?

The very fact that no definition of the term was included implies that the definition was one with which they were all familiar and took for granted. As I said, the common law definition would have been the norm for the time and place.

Apparently you don't understand English. Please re-read what I posted:

If you are born on a US Naval vessel to two US citizen parents, you are considered a natural born citizen by the US. But if that naval vessel was in Canadian waters, then Canada also considers you a Canadian citizen. Does the fact that Canada conferred citizenship to you make you a non-natural born citizen?

In other words, I recognize that the vessel is US territory, as you are a natural born citizen. However, the issue is that Canada also considers you a Canadian citizen as you were born in their waters (their law specifically exempts embassies only - not bases nor vessels).

So this is the perfect example of dual citizenship for a natural born citizen. Yes, it can happen, and no having dual citizenship should not disqualify a person from being President, because the person has ZERO control over what another nation considers their status as a citizen of their nation.

88
posted on 12/31/2009 11:16:36 AM PST
by PugetSoundSoldier
(Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)

A US Naval vessel is sovereign US territory, as is a US military base, or a US embassy.

Actually none of them are. If a foreign national were to give birth on a U.S. Naval vessel or a U.S. military base in a foreign country or in an embassy then their child is not a U.S. citizen. Which they would be if any were actually sovereign U.S. territory. Children born overseas on a U.S. military base are natural born citizens because one or both parents are, not because they're born in a military hospital.

Canandian waters are equivalent to Canadian soil. Such a baby would be a dual US-Canadian citizen at birth, but SCOTUS has not yet clarified whether or not the child would be NBC eligible to be POTUS, per the scholars I trust. Scholars I trust say such a citizen, born outside the US, would be a statutory citizen not a constitutionally defined NBC and thus not POTUS eligible.

You trust your scholars and the courts will trust theirs. They probably won't be the same scholars.

All Senate resolutions are non-binding, just as all House resolutions are non-binding, even when the word "non-binding" doesn't appear in its title, because everything that the Senate and House do is to "bind" others -- never themselves -- just as everything posted by liberals and Obamabats is non-binding. It's meant for others never themselves.

That being said, do you know where Barack Obama's non-binding SR511 is????

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.